THE US military is to offer recommendations on Afghan war, America's longest, to President Donald Trump within the next week. This is with a view to breaking the stalemate in Afghanistan. The term "stalemate," first used by the top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, is a euphemism for America's inability to have its way in that country. This has left the Taleban with more territory now than at any other point in the 16-year US occupation. It was to dislodge the Taleban from power that the US invaded this Central Asian country in 2001 in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks against America. A US-led coalition did oust the Taleban, which Washington said harbored the Al-Qaeda that staged the attacks, in no time. But, as in Iraq, the real war started after the US declared victory, and things have been going from bad to worse for America and its allies. US may use, as it did on April 13, a 22,000-pound mother of all bombs (MOAB), against its enemies in Afghanistan. But by staging daring attacks against American and Afghan security forces wherever and whenever they want, Taleban and other insurgent groups try to prove that in Afghanistan the US is engaged in a mother of all blunders. A string of attacks in recent months show how US and its allies are struggling to maintain a semblance of security in that country. Taleban will never be able to defeat the US militarily but they have proved their ability to subvert and demoralize the Afghan armed forces, already beset with corruption, desertion (every year, between a quarter and a third of the Afghan Army and the police desert) and mistrust between soldiers and officers. It is widely known that last year a record number of Afghan forces were killed — 6,800 in total. This is the grim legacy confronting Trump in Afghanistan. He is expected to announce his decision later in the month, sometime around the NATO summit. Trump who said little about Afghanistan during his election campaign has spoken several times on the issue after he assumed power and overtime it has been with bluster and bravado. For example, Trump promised troops in Afghanistan the night of his inauguration that "we're going to win." He did not explain how. But Gen. John Nicholson thinks "a few thousand" additional troops will somehow reverse the present situation and ensure progress toward victory. To affirm his national security credentials and as a warning to North Korea, Trump may acceded to Gen. Nicholson's request. US troops have been in Afghanistan since October 2001 as part of a force that peaked at nearly 140,000 troops (100,000 of them American). If nearly 140,000 troops could not decimate Taleban and bring security and stability, we can't expect another "surge" to change the course of war in favor of America. What is more, there are new elements in the situation. One, Russia has begun to openly challenge the US in Afghanistan — finding American bases there a threat to the sphere of influence in Central Asia that it would like to resurrect. Second, the return of former Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to Kabul on Thursday after two decades in hiding. On Friday, he renewed his call for peace with the Taleban and withdrawal of foreign troops. He was sharply critical of the national unity government headed by President Ashraf Ghani. All this means that Trump can do the things his predecessors George W. Bush and Obama did, but without expecting a different result. In 2015, referring to America's inability to win the war in Afghanistan, Trump asked rhetorically: "Are they going to be there for the next 200 years?" Well, nobody can predict the future. But given the past experience, this president is likely to hand off the conflict to his successor just as Bush and Obama did, despite all talk of victory.
